COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug in the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on 5 September 2024. He was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant had earlier confirmed his plea and admission of the Summary of Facts before me.
Particulars of Charge 1 are that on 7 April 2023, at the entrance of the metal hut at lot number 223, section B, remaining portion DD46, Sha Tau Kok, New Territories (“the Metal Hut”), the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 1 kilogramme of a solid containing 823 grammes of cocaine.
Particulars of Charge 2 are that on 7 April 2023, Room E of the Metal Hut, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 3 kilogrammes of a solid containing 2,471 grammes of cocaine.
The Facts
The defendant was intercepted by a team of customs officers at around 12.06 pm on 7 April 2023 at the entrance of the Metal Hut. In the white recycle bag he was holding, a block of solid weighing 1 kilogramme containing 823 grammes of cocaine was found. This is the subject matter of Charge 1. He was arrested. Under caution, the defendant said that the substance inside the white bag was “Coke”, but he did not know what “Coke” is. He admitted that the substance belonged to him and was for distribution to customers whom he did not know.
Two keys were also found on the defendant, they were keys to Room E of the Metal Hut. Upon search of Room E, a total of 3 kilogrammes of a solid, in the form of blocks, containing 2,471 grammes of cocaine were found in three separate plastic wrappings, inside a suitcase in the living room. This is the subject matter of Charge 2. Under caution, the defendant said again that the substances inside the suitcase were “Coke”, but he did not know what “Coke” is. He admitted that the substance belonged to him and was for distribution to customers whom he did not know. He further admitted that he rented Room E.
The defendant remained silent in the video-recorded interview.
The total narcotic content in this case were 4 kilogrammes of a solid, in the form of blocks, containing 3,294 grammes of cocaine.
The estimated street value for that amount of cocaine is HK$4,368,000.
The defendant now accepts and admits that he knowingly possessed the subject dangerous drugs seized for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
Antecedent and Mitigation
The defendant was 25 years old at the time of arrest, he is now 27 years old. He was divorced and had two daughters aged 8 and 6 now. Before his arrest, he was living with his parents and his two daughters. He finished education up to Secondary 2 level. He was unemployed when he was arrested. He has no similar criminal records.
In mitigation, the defendant had pleaded guilty at a timely opportunity. Mr Pun has said all he could on behalf of the defendant. Mr Pun said that the defendant committed the present offence because he was in financial difficulty.
I have read the letters from the defendant and his father. The defendant expressed his remorse and regret as well as his determination to look after his family after his release from custody. His father also expressed the difficulties he faced in looking after the grandchildren. Both asked for a lenient sentence.
Considerations of sentence
Although the defendant faced two offences of trafficking in the two separate quantities of drugs he possessed at two different places on the same day, the locations where the drugs were seized were in close proximity.
I would regard the two offences as representing one occasion of trafficking in the total amount of drugs and impose a sentence on both offences for that total, making the sentence concurrent with one another. This is to reflect the defendant’s culpability and reality of the situation: see HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75 at paragraphs 27 to 30.
I will now determine the sentence following the six-step sentencing approach in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 and HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150.
Step one, the applicable guideline band applicable to the quantity of drugs concerned
I will approach the sentencing of the defendant by treating the drugs as one total quantity of 3,294 grammes of cocaine.
The sentencing tariffs for trafficking in cocaine have been revised in a recent Court of Appeal decision, HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] 2 HKC 796. The revised sentencing guidelines in cocaine took effect from 5 March 2025, the date of the judgment at paragraph 68. The applicable tariffs for trafficking in 500 grammes of cocaine onwards have become lower than the previous guidelines.
It is a settled principle of sentencing that an offender is to be sentenced upon the existing or prevailing guideline or tariff sentence which existed at the time of commission of the offence, unless the guideline or tariff has become lower by the day of sentence (see Article 12(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap 383) and HKSAR v Tsoi Shu & Ors [2005] 1 HKC 51.
For quantities of 1,500 to 5,000 grammes, the revised sentencing band is 20 to 24 years’ imprisonment.
On a purely arithmetical basis to the 3,294 grammes of cocaine narcotic, the starting point would be 22 years’ imprisonment after rounding down.
Steps two and three, assessment of the defendant’s role and culpability and where in the relevant band the defendant comes
As for the defendant’s role and culpability, Mr Pun submits that the defendant’s role was a courier and he was not the mastermind. There is no evidence before me to suggest the defendant had any further role beyond the culpability of a courier. I therefore assess his culpability on that basis.
Steps four and five, aggravating factor and mitigating factor
Although the defendant has three criminal conviction records in 2012, they are not related to dangerous drugs. I will not regard them as aggravating factor.
Regarding mitigating factors, personal circumstances will count for little, unless they are exceptional in trafficking cases. There are none in this case.
The real mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s guilty plea. He is entitled to a one-third discount off the starting point, which brings the sentence down to 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment after rounding down for each of Counts 1 and 2. I further order the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 shall be served concurrently.
The last step is to observe the overall sentence passed to ensure it was fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. I am of the view that the sentence of 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment is appropriate and not out of proportion to the defendant’s overall criminality.
The final sentence I would impose on the defendant is one of 14 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.